Blackjack Card Count Hoax

JSTAT · Jul 19, 2009

Everywhere you look when trying to beat the casinos at blackjack, the high/low count rears its ugly head. The movie "21" in 2008 accelerated this count to the masses. Almost every book published since 1966 recommends this count. The internet is infested with 2-6=+1, 10-A=-1. A can't miss count presumably. It can be argued that high/low cannot detect blackjacks and insurance. Since aces and tens are counted together, the probability of predicting blackjacks that correspond with the count is impossible. For example, if all the aces are gone in a single deck game (Reno rules) with a +2 count at 1/4 deck played is almost a 2% disadvantage with the 2.4% deduction from blackjacks. More aces played than normal can do serious harm to the player. Conversely, a -2 count at 39 cards left (with all 4 aces remaining to be played), blackjacks will increase from the 4.83% off the top to 5.39%. The high/low player missed out on this positive situation. In insurance instances, high/low strikes out due to aces being counted as high cards.

A calculator was used to confirm these numbers, not a computer simulator. After Edward O. Thorp's "Beat The Dealer" in 1962, the casinos panicked. Something had to be done. More decks were added to confuse the Ten Count player. The 1966 revised edition of "Beat The Dealer" introduced Harvey Dubner's High/Low count. Julian Braun of the IBM corporation did the faulty computer work that has fooled the masses since. The mob controlled casinos were happy. Card counters bought the half truths hook, line, and sinker. Casino consultant Stanford Wong "fixed" the overlay's of 7,8,9's from Braun's "mistakes" in his 1975 book "Professional Blackjack" using his Blackjack Count Analyzer.

Stanford Wong was "convinced" (most likely by the casino industry) to make a revision in the 1994 edition of "Professional Blackjack." On page 217 it states, "The 1981 and earlier editions of this book contained strategy numbers for high-low adjusted for aces and halves adjusted for aces. Using those numbers required keeping a side count of aces. That material is not included in this edition due to its lack of importance in increasing your win rate." Wong is wrong! Aces do matter and some of the math I provided proves it increases the win rate dramatically.

Most Hi-Lo authors must agree with Wong's "don't worry about it" stance concerning the side count of aces. Good for players who side count aces and bad for the others who drink the casino sponsored kool-aid. These authors will not be published by major gambling publishers if they don't play ball. Aces are to be reckoned with the 10's to satisfy the casino industry or become a internet yahoo.

My "High-Low Myth Shattered" YouTube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLtT8fzQsTc&feature=channel_page

kewljason · Jul 19, 2009

So why do you insist on shoving these thoughts down our throat. You have found the truth and the rest of us are idiots. Isn't that enough for you?
I find it interesting that you appear every so often, spewing your nonsense with the exact same argument that is continually shot down. Then you disappear for 2 weeks and then we go through the whole game again. I beleive thats the definition of insanity. Doing the exact same thing over and over, hoping for a different outcome.

Automatic Monkey · Jul 19, 2009

JSTAT said:
... The high/low player missed out on this positive situation. In insurance instances, high/low strikes out due to aces being counted as high cards. .

Then use Hi-Opt II if you are worried about it. What's your effing problem?

Blue Efficacy · Jul 19, 2009

The high low count has been a proven moneymaker, despite its shortcomings. It is easy to learn and unlike the JSTAT count, easy to use effectively in multideck games.

To reiterate, hi-lo makes money. It cannot be a hoax and a horrible thing if it allows the player to easily beat 6 or 8 deck blackjack long term.

JSTAT · Jul 19, 2009

kewljason said:
So why do you insist on shoving these thoughts down our throat. You have found the truth and the rest of us are idiots. Isn't that enough for you?
I find it interesting that you appear every so often, spewing your nonsense with the exact same argument that is continually shot down. Then you disappear for 2 weeks and then we go through the whole game again. I beleive thats the definition of insanity. Doing the exact same thing over and over, hoping for a different outcome.

I tried to make "Blackjack Card Count Hoax" bulletproof. If it can be proven wrong without personal attacks, I will apologize to this community. I expect the vocal minority to slander me without providing facts. One expects this ugly tactic when telling the truth.

My posts here have been diverse. "Just Say Yo' at craps, "Cheating at Thunder Valley", "Barring at the Luxor" and of course my http://www.youtube.com/user/Moviemakerjjcasino videos to name a few. I've participated in the chats and have had a blast the with the nice people here. The silent majority appreciate good debate without name calling.

JSTAT · Jul 19, 2009

Automatic Monkey said:
Then use Hi-Opt II if you are worried about it. What's your effing problem?

Where can I buy the Hi-OptII? It is not for sale anywhere. Why was it pulled off the market? Did the casinos buy all the copies?

JSTAT · Jul 19, 2009

Blue Efficacy said:
The high low count has been a proven moneymaker, despite its shortcomings. It is easy to learn and unlike the JSTAT count, easy to use effectively in multideck games.

To reiterate, hi-lo makes money. It cannot be a hoax and a horrible thing if it allows the player to easily beat 6 or 8 deck blackjack long term.

If two or more more aces are left than normal, then yes, hi-lo can bring in the money at shoe games. Side counting aces are essential to winning at 6 or 8 deck games. Stanford Wong's stating that aces don't matter should raise a red flag to the aspiring counter.

Katweezel · Jul 19, 2009

Manifesto

JSTAT said:
If two or more more aces are left than normal, then yes, hi-lo can bring in the money at shoe games. Side counting aces are essential to winning at 6 or 8 deck games. Stanford Wong's stating that aces don't matter should raise a red flag to the aspiring counter.

In the never-ending search for the Blackjack Truth that ceaselessly continues on this forum, your premise that Wong is wrong and you are right (on this issue) should not be too difficult to prove, if seasoned, savvy notables were to take some interest.
These adepts could sign a manifesto that states something like this: Although I usually strongly disagree with most of what JSTAT writes, on this Wong/Aces issue, I believe he is ah... mostly correct. Even though it is painful to say so... Now to pass it around and see if any will sign it...

Automatic Monkey · Jul 19, 2009

JSTAT said:
Where can I buy the Hi-OptII? It is not for sale anywhere. Why was it pulled off the market? Did the casinos buy all the copies?

It's in Lance Humble's book:

http://www.amazon.com/World-Greatest-Blackjack-Book/dp/0385153821/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247973052&sr=1-1

Amazon has 83 copies. Hurry hurry get yours before the casinos buy them all.

But if you're late, I'll give you my indices and spreads, used it myself for a couple of years.

Now can you ackright?

kewljason · Jul 19, 2009

Good Idea katweezel. Lets weigh the evidence. On the one side we have numerous members who have made a living or supplemented their income or just casual players who have made a profit playing 6-8 deck games using Hi-lo for many years. This adds up to ten's of thousands of hours, maybe hundred's of thousands of hours. In the millions if you count hands.

On the other side, we have a self proclaimed postal worker, who made a video in his basement. Such the quality that he used a joker to replace a queen face card that he lost.

Lets have the first 12 respondants weigh in as jurors and end this debate. We will see how long it takes the jury to reach a decision. In the interest of fairness my response as well as Jstat's doesn't count.

bjcount · Jul 19, 2009

Automatic Monkey said:
It's in Lance Humble's book:

http://www.amazon.com/World-Greatest-Blackjack-Book/dp/0385153821/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247973052&sr=1-1

Amazon has 83 copies. Hurry hurry get yours before the casinos buy them all.

But if you're late, I'll give you my indices and spreads, used it myself for a couple of years.

Now can you ackright?

Don't buy this book looking for HO2, it's not in this book.... wish it was..

BJC

JSTAT · Jul 19, 2009

Automatic Monkey said:
It's in Lance Humble's book:

http://www.amazon.com/World-Greatest-Blackjack-Book/dp/0385153821/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247973052&sr=1-1

Amazon has 83 copies. Hurry hurry get yours before the casinos buy them all.

But if you're late, I'll give you my indices and spreads, used it myself for a couple of years.

Now can you ackright?

I just wiped off the dust from "The World's Greatest Blackjack Book" and as I thought, it doesn't contain strategies for the Hi-Opt II. It must be ordered through Lance Humble's International Blackjack Club. Humble closed up shop and the Hi-Opt II can't be found.

JSTAT · Jul 19, 2009

kewljason said:
Good Idea katweezel. Lets weigh the evidence. On the one side we have numerous members who have made a living or supplemented their income or just casual players who have made a profit playing 6-8 deck games using Hi-lo for many years. This adds up to ten's of thousands of hours, maybe hundred's of thousands of hours. In the millions if you count hands.

On the other side, we have a self proclaimed postal worker, who made a video in his basement. Such the quality that he used a joker to replace a queen face card that he lost.

Lets have the first 12 respondants weigh in as jurors and end this debate. We will see how long it takes the jury to reach a decision. In the interest of fairness my response as well as Jstat's doesn't count.

I guess you couldn't find a way to put down my "Blackjack Card Count Hoax" post. So you took the low road. Check out my new video "High-Low Myth Shattered" on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLtT8fzQsTc&feature=channel_page to judge me. No jokers here. Our own FLASH1296 commented below the video.

kewljason · Jul 19, 2009

JSTAT said:
I guess you couldn't find a way to put down my "Blackjack Card Count Hoax" post. So you took the low road. Check out my new video "High-Low Myth Shattered" on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLtT8fzQsTc&feature=channel_page to judge me. No jokers here. Our own FLASH1296 commented below the video.

I'm not taking the low road at all. I am offering evidence as you asked for. Now concerning this second video, yes you have corrected the playing with a joker problem. Congrats on that.

However there are some other problems with the video. For example you paid your winnings out of your own money several times. At the end of the video you claim to have made a profit of $75, when in fact you made a profit of $275. (due to several winners winners that you paid out of your own money)

Now I went back over the video and played the hands with hi-lo, using as similar a betting scheme as I could, for comparision sake. 2 hands of $50 at neutral counts, 1 hand of $25 at negative counts and 2 hands of $100 at true count of +1. The results: hi-lo won $312.50!! The difference being on the 3rd and last hand of the second series before the bathroom break you wagered 1 hand of 1 unit because several aces had already been played. The true count (and running count) was 0 at that point so the hi-lo wager would have been the neutral $50. Since the hand was a BJ. Thats an additional $37.50 won for hi-lo. Thanks for the video. Most entertaining.

For those of you thinking that I have too much time on my hands...you are correct!! I am recovering from a collarbone break.

DeTalores · Jul 19, 2009

Yeah this method seems pretty silly.
Does anyone besides JSTAT think as highly of it as he does?

kewljason · Jul 19, 2009

DeTalores said:
Yeah this method seems pretty silly.
Does anyone besides JSTAT think as highly of it as he does?

I don't know.

I was expecting more responses from my earlier proposal in this thread to let the member here weigh in as the jury. But that didn't happen. It is a Saturday, many may be out. Also I suspect many just don't read the threads started by Jstat any longer. We really are going over and over old ground.

itrack · Jul 19, 2009

Hopefully this link works... its an image of a 2 billion round sim for Hi-Lo using illustirous 18 and fab 4 indices... the one that comes with CVCX when you BUY IT! don't worry, theres no cards taken outta the deck in this sim! Read em and weep JSTAT, because I dont think that there is anything you can do that proves this picture wrong. I just hope the link works becuase I've never uploaded a picture before...

itrack · Jul 19, 2009

Just incase your gonna be picky...

sorry the last sim was set to only playing positive true counts. Heres a sim for playing all hands.

JSTAT · Jul 19, 2009

kewljason said:
I don't know. I was expecting more responses from my earlier proposal in this thread to let the member here weigh in as the jury. But that didn't happen. It is a Saturday, many may be out. Also I suspect many just don't read the threads started by Jstat any longer. We really are going over and over old ground.

Obviously, the silent majority agrees that a High/Low hoax could exist. The "Blackjack Card Counting Hoax" makes sense. The facts presented are documented. An ace side count must be included for a counter to win. Why did Stanford Wong backpeddle encouraging hi-lo counters to not side count aces in the 1994 edition of "Professional Blackjack"? Why did IBM expert Julian Braun sabotage Harvey Dubner's High/Low count in Edward O. Thorp's "Beat The Dealer" in 1966? The who, what, when, how, and why is explained. No one has yet come up to the plate and disputed these claims. This is new ground!

zengrifter · Jul 19, 2009

JSTAT said:
Obviously, the silent majority agrees that a High/Low hoax could exist.

Maybe this thread belongs in the ZZone rather than the Voodoo forum? zg

Blackjack Card Count Hoax

Banned

Well-Known Member

Banned

Well-Known Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Well-Known Member

Banned

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Banned

Banned

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Banned

Banned